Editorial Roundup: Ohio

Elyria Chronicle-Telegram. Feb, 24, 2021.

Editorial: End Ohio’s death penalty

Ohio should follow Virginia’s lead and abolish the death penalty.

If the Old Dominion State, which The Associated Press reported has executed more people in its history than any other state, can do it, then so can Ohio.

Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam, a Democrat, is expected to sign the repeal, which the state legislature approved Monday, just days after a bipartisan group of Ohio lawmakers announced a push to do the same in the Buckeye State.

Once again leading the charge is state Sen. Nickie Antonio, D-Lakewood.

“It’s time for the state of Ohio to take the compassionate, pragmatic and prudent step to abolish the death penalty, which has been found to be expensive, impractical, unjust, inhumane and even erroneous,” Antonio said last week.

She’s right. There are far too many problems with the death penalty, including that the criminal justice system sometimes gets it wrong.

The number of death row inmates exonerated through DNA and other evidence continues to grow.

The Death Penalty Information Center’s list of death row inmates across the nation who had been exonerated since 1973 stood at 162 people in July 2018. There were 185 exonerees, including 11 from Ohio, on the list Tuesday.

Moreover, the death penalty is unevenly imposed. What could be a capital case in one county might not be in another, based on how local prosecutors decide to handle the matter.

Then there are the disturbing racial disparities in who is being sentenced to die. For example, of the people cleared after being sentenced to death in Ohio, eight of the 11 were Black.

Beyond that, Ohio has run into problems carrying out executions.

At times the condemned have clearly suffered as the lethal drugs took hold, something that is cruel and unusual. Additionally, the state has struggled to procure the drugs necessary to carry out executions.

Those issues have led to an unofficial moratorium on executions in the state, which hasn’t executed anyone since July 18, 2018, when Robert Van Hook was put to death for the 1985 killing of David Self in Cincinnati.

Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine, a Republican, has said executions are unlikely to resume until the state finds a new method to carry them out, but that doesn’t appear to be a priority for him right now.

It’s hard to believe that the majority of Ohioans would support hanging, the electric chair or firing squad as acceptable methods of execution. Those remain just as barbaric as they were when Ohio and other states shifted to lethal injection with its veneer of bloodless sterility.

Even DeWine, a former prosecutor who helped write Ohio’s capital punishment law when he was in the state legislature, has said he’s grown “skeptical” of whether the death penalty is an effective deterrent to crime.

Ohio is hardly unique in facing calls to end executions.

Pressure to abolish the federal death penalty increased in the waning months of the Trump administration, when the federal government resumed executions following a 17-year hiatus. In total 13 federal inmates were put to death between July and January.

President Joe Biden should push Congress to eliminate the federal death penalty and not allow executions on his watch.

In the meantime, Ohio has slightly chipped away at its death penalty. In January, DeWine signed legislation banning the death penalty for defendants with severe mental illness at the time of the offense.

It was progress, but not nearly enough.

Lorain County Prosecutor J.D. Tomlinson, a Democrat who took office in January, told us he understood the feelings of those who favor the death penalty, including the families of some homicide victims. He even said he would feel the same way if someone in his family were a victim.

“The difficulty with pursuing the death penalty, however, is that it is not practical,” Tomlinson said. “It is costly and it is almost never imposed.”

Tomlinson said that because of how long it takes for executions to take place, he suspected that most of the 135 people on Ohio’s death row probably would end up dying from some other cause before they could be executed. (Two Lorain County men, Stanley Jalowiec and Freddie McNeill, are on death row.)

“When the option of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole is available, it is a much better choice for the taxpayer, and it is just as safe,” he said.

Not only that, life in prison is a harsh punishment.

Virginia will become the 23rd state to put an end to the death penalty. Ohio should be the 24th.

___

Cleveland Plain Dealer. Feb. 27, 2021.

Editorial: Frank LaRose’s one-drop-box-per-county rule resurfaces. Voter suppression or caution?

Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose has decreed for the May 4 primary, as he did for the Nov. 3 presidential election, that each of Ohio’s 88 counties has to have one ballot drop box for voters — and could only have one. In other words, counties with more than 1.2 million residents like Cuyahoga County are allowed the same number of drop boxes as counties with 13,000 like tiny Vinton County in southeast Ohio.

That order for the Nov. 3 election was vigorously opposed by both Republican and Democratic members of the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections. They saw it as impeding voting access in the pandemic for many Cuyahoga County voters unable to reach the board of elections.

LaRose has said he personally supports multiple ballot drop boxes but has argued he lacks the legal authority to order more — although courts that reviewed the matter found he did. LaRose also argued prior to the November election that allowing multiple drop boxes so close to the election would prompt voter confusion.

So why, cleveland.com reporter Andrew J. Tobias wondered, did LaRose issue that order for the May 4 primary more than 11 weeks in advance?

LaRose didn’t directly answer but his spokeswoman Maggie Sheehan told Tobias in an email that LaRose “firmly believes that the General Assembly needs to come up with a comprehensive, bipartisan, and fair plan for drop boxes all across the state – such as how many per county, where in each county they should be located, and how to keep them secure – so that it is set in law. The issue of the number and location of drop boxes in each county should not be something that changes for each election depending upon who is Secretary of State.”

Unfortunately, as LaRose himself knows, the legislature has been resistant to updating Ohio voting laws, not adopting many of the measures LaRose himself proposed in 2019 that our editorial board strongly praised.

One result of not having sufficient ballot box access in Cuyahoga County may have been the striking falloff in Cleveland turnout for a presidential election, including in majority-Black areas of the city. Orders like LaRose’s have consequences in voter access.

So what does our Editorial Board Roundtable think? Is LaRose being appropriately cautious, or is he failing to live up to his duty during the pandemic to accommodate the needs of urban voters in large counties — effectively suppressing that vote?

Ted Diadiun, columnist:

I’ve long thought – and written – that all the caterwauling about voter suppression is overwrought, politically charged nonsense. Anyone who really wants to vote has ample time and opportunity to do so. That said, LaRose’s recalcitrant approach on this is unnecessary and self-defeating. Why not just install multiple boxes in populated counties and be done with it?

Thomas Suddes, editorial writer:

Overall, Frank LaRose has done a good job. But some of his fellow Republicans think that if more Ohioans can conveniently cast their ballots, more Ohio Democrats will win public offices. Result: The secretary of state wants legislative cover on adding drop boxes — which, as LaRose likely realizes, the GOP-run General Assembly won’t give him.

Eric Foster, columnist:

LaRose comes across as an immensely reasonable and likeable guy in person. That’s why I’m so befuddled by this decision. Common sense says a county with a million residents could use more drop boxes than a county with 10,000 residents. Courts have unanimously held LaRose has the authority to allow more. What gives? Oh yeah. Politics.

Lisa Garvin, editorial board member:

Given his apparent authority to demand multiple drop boxes, it appears LaRose is walking a tightrope between appeasing his party and his mission to provide equitable voter access. Needlessly passing the buck to the legislature would give them carte blanche to create laws adding to the flood of voter suppression bills currently sweeping the nation.

Victor Ruiz, editorial board member:

Frank LaRose is doing what Frank LaRose has always done, so we should not expect anything else from him. He knows very well that a Republican legislature will never expand voting opportunities, so this is just his attempt at not looking like the bad guy. We need a secretary of state who fights for, not limits, democracy.

Mary Cay Doherty, editorial board member:

Voter access does not hinge on drop boxes. Ohioans who want to vote have ample opportunities to do so. And LaRose is correct: Drop box decisions belong in the hands of the General Assembly. The legislative branch, not the executive or judicial, enacts uniform statewide election laws. Ohio’s legislators should now work to resolve the issue quickly.

Elizabeth Sullivan, opinion director:

LaRose has the authority to allow multiple drop boxes in large counties and he knows it. Playing political games like this is unworthy of him.

___

Youngstown Vindicator. Feb. 25, 2021.

Editorial: After 26 years, lakes deal still haunts Girard

It’s been 26 years since the city of Girard purchased the Upper and Lower Lakes with pie-in-the-sky dreams of creating a city-run water service for its 12,000 residents.

The bad decision and the subsequent problems resulting from the purchase still haunt the city. Sadly, taxpayers still are holding the bag. Some might describe the situation as a comedy of errors, but no mess costing millions of dollars is a laughing matter.

Here’s some history about the city’s 1995 decision to purchase the lakes under former Mayor Vincent ”Sonny” Schuyler’s administration. Council, at the time, voted 5-2 in favor of the purchase for $2.5 million. Then-Councilmen Daniel Moadus Jr. and Donald Rex were shrewd enough to know council was being bamboozled and voted against the purchase. But, according to Tribune Chronicle archives, five council members - Lou Adavasio, Leo Grimes, Thomas Kolic, Reynald Paolone and Mark Zuppo - voted yes on the purchase.

The day of the March 1995 vote, Rex made this prophetic statement: “As my dear old Irish-Macedonian mother told me: ‘If you’re in doubt, don’t do it.‘”

Girard officials had been dreaming about creating their own drinking water system, estimated at the time to cost as much as $15 million. The quality of the water in the two lakes, however, later was called into question and some experts predicted it would have required costly treatment and careful monitoring to make the water potable.

Around 2003, the lakes were appraised by Diversified Evaluation Co. of Pittsburgh at a market value of $1.25 million. When the loan borrowed from the Ohio Water Development Authority finally was paid off, some $5 million was spent.

And that’s not to mention the Lower Lake’s dam was in such poor condition that it ultimately was declared structurally unsafe by the Ohio Department of Natural Resources. Repair estimates ranged up to $10 million.

That ultimately led to orders by state officials to reduce the water level of the Upper Lake by 5 feet and drain the Lower Lake. Residents will recall that draining process that killed thousands of fish in 2004.

Years of fiscal distress for Girard city followed the purchase, with former Ohio Auditor Jim Petro blaming, in large part, the purchase of the lakes.

In 2003, Mayor Jim Melfi asked then-Ohio Auditor Betty Montgomery to probe the lakes’ purchase.

Later that year, it was revealed that former Girard Law Director Ronald Marks had signed a confidentiality agreement when the city was negotiating the purchase of the lakes and their dams in 1994, meaning that council ultimately voted to approve the purchase without ever having full knowledge of all the details.

Today, the city has been trying to market about 750 acres of Girard Upper Lake property. But after receiving only one bid for $1 million for the property when the minimum bid was $4.2 million, officials have decided to try again. This time, they’ll consider retaining ownership of the dam, which still needs repairs, and sell the surrounding lake land separately.

After 26 years of headaches, we believe Girard leaders should reconsider that decision and take the offer. It’s time for the city and its taxpayers to move on from this debacle.

Further, this crisis should be a lesson for all public officials - do your homework. As former Councilman Rex wisely stated in 1995, “If you’re in doubt, don’t do it.”

And if someone doesn’t want to give you answers, then vote no until they do.

___

Sandusky Register. Feb. 22, 2021.

Editorial: Mascot decisions coming due

We appreciate the community spirit it takes to serve on a local school board. Board members care about their local schools and work to make them better each day of service on the board. There is little or no pay, and the work is mostly thankless. The gratitude for community members who sit on school boards is giving back and making our home districts better.

Nobody runs for a school board seat for glory; they do it to be in service to others. We acknowledge this and give thanks for those high-minded individuals who serve. You are an important part of the foundation that makes living here better.

Leaders sometimes face bigger questions than dress codes, operations costs and other routine items that show up on school board meeting agendas. Two local school boards have showdowns with history just ahead and will have to make decisions that will, in some ways, define community values.

For many, the mascots used for sports teams at both the Bellevue and Port Clinton school districts are racist. School board members will have to decide whether that is to continue; they will need to lead the debate and guide their respective communities to an understanding. Should the mascots be changed? Why? When?

This issue has festered for years, for decades. For some, if not most or all, Native Americans, the use of caricatured images, exaggerated features, descriptive names or names bestowed upon them by others as sports mascots and images has always been offensive. From the very beginning and each and every season since. There has never not been a protest, whether it was seen or heard, or reported, before.

Increased pressure from various sources in the last few years - groups that acknowledge the aggrieved - has led to change. The National Football League’s Washington team dropped its offensive mascot, the same one that’s used in Port Clinton. There’s a petition circulating online asking the school board to change it that has an estimated 3,100 signatures.

The movement to have a community conversation in both communities gained momentum last year again when Cleveland’s Major League Baseball team announced it would drop its offensive mascot name a couple of years after it banned its cartoon image. Some board members from both districts said their respective boards would consider a name change.

In the middle of a pandemic, however, was not the time for those larger community conversations. But as we emerge from it, as it becomes safer to have meetings and public discussions, we hope the school boards in both cities take this challenge and invite the public for a conversation about whether the time to change is now, why it is, or isn’t, and how to be respectful to others in this process.

We know that in this age of short tempers and closed minds that this is a challenge of no small dimension. We know, too, that nothing is easy. Something worthy of meeting the challenge rarely is. We urge the school boards to carefully consider this proposal and carefully consider how best to facilitate a community dialogue that will serve the greater good. This is a public discussion and your communities are calling on you to lead this effort.

___

Toledo Blade. Feb. 25, 2021.

Editorial: Liability shields should not be free passes

As the coronavirus swept through the country, many states enacted partial liability shields for health-care providers in the face of constantly evolving knowledge about the virus. Such shields are intended to prevent citizens from suing when a provider was operating with the best practices available.

This kind of protection is sensible and fair, as over the course of the disease’s spread, federal agencies and experts reversed course on numerous strategies to combat the virus, ranging from masking and ventilator usage to whether patients should lie on their backs or stomachs and more.

But the liability shields must not become a free pass for organizations that ignored or failed to operate with best practices, especially long-term care facilities like nursing homes, where the coronavirus struck with particular ferocity.

Currently, there is not a body in Ohio that determines the scope of the liability shield - it may be an issue left to the courts. The state should create a separate commission to examine claims and evaluate their merits on an individual basis. It should include a cadre of public health experts, advocates for families and residents, scientists, unions, or some other representatives of workers. It should look at what actually happened then determine what actions deserve legal protection and what do not.

Ideally, there should be a national standard for such lawsuits, but until that comes to pass, states should create their own.

But this is problematic for the likely lack of consistency.

Liability shields mustn’t be a cloak around bad behavior. They are warranted for mishaps and miscalculations that occurred as best practices were evolving, but the shields should not be used as a duck and cover for properly dealing with the coronavirus as it spread throughout the country.

An expert, impartial body should give guidance.

END